> It is a silly question (and I will probably get flamed for this) but > I will ask anyway. Was Jim really generating as much traffic as > talking about Jim has been generating? BLB
Statements like that should generate flames in these circumstances, because if they are not an old slogan and misrepresentation of the situation, they are based on too little information to justify their publication. All of us who have been around enough to have standing to speak on the subject know that this burst of noise about siliencing Mr. Fleming was inevitable. This burst will run its course and be finished within another 36 hours, with some stragglers over the next several days. We also know that that Mr. Fleming would have continued his noise indefinitely. His streams of noise exceed the bursts noise that happen when he is temporarily silenced if you let him continue long enough. Moreover, the noise from Mr. Fleming incites and justifies garbage from others. The choice is between these finite bursts of noise and infinite noise from Mr. Fleming. That observation and that by my count this is the third time that he has been sanctioned imply that this ban should be made permanent. So please permanently revoke Mr. Fleming's privileges. That will not only stop his noise, but also prevent future bursts of noise about temporarily stopping his noise. Vernon Schryver [EMAIL PROTECTED]